More clarity on online sales through renewed block exemption regulation for vertical agreements

As of June 1, 2022, the renewed block exemption regulation for vertical agreements entered into force. To promote competition, this European regulation restricts the commercial freedom of parties when making vertical agreements, such as in a franchise agreement. The legislation has been modernized: more clarity is being created about the (im)possibilities in the field of online activities.

Under the old regulations, the franchisor was already not allowed to prohibit a franchisee from using a website. The renewed Vertical Agreement Block Exemption Regulation adds (or at least clarifies) that the franchisor is also not allowed to prohibit online sales. The amount of online sales (the volume) by the franchisee may also not be limited by the franchisor. This is a so-called hardcore restriction.

The franchisor is still allowed to set quality requirements for the website. It is also permitted to regulate the manner of online sales. As a result, under certain circumstances it is permitted, for example, for a franchisor to prohibit the sale of the products via online platforms such as Bol.com. Within these quality requirements, the franchisor is not allowed to prohibit the use of the trademark and/or the brand name, nor is it allowed to impose a general ban on the use of price comparison websites.

With the rise of internet sales for many years now and the possibility for the franchisee to sell his goods unlimited via the internet, people will in some cases wonder what the need for a physical point of sale is. Nevertheless, the franchisor is still allowed to require the operation of a physical point of sale.

It seems that the new regulations have tried to accommodate the franchisor in a different way with regard to the shift in the market towards more online sales. With the entry into force of the renewed Vertical Agreement Block Exemption Regulation, the franchisor is allowed to set different prices for online sales compared to the prices charged for the brick-and-mortar stores. Naturally, these price differences may not be such that it is only attractive for the franchisee to sell goods via a physical point of sale. The price difference must be explained on the basis of the difference in costs incurred by the franchisee for an online sale compared to a sale from a physical point of sale.

In addition to the clarification regarding online sales, the renewed Vertical Agreement Block Exemption Regulation has, among other things, clarified the tacit renewal of the franchise agreement after five years (this is allowed, subject to reasonable notice and termination conditions). The implementation of this new legislation also allows the prohibition of active sales (outside, for example, an exclusive area) to be extended to the customers of the franchisee (if they also proceed to resale). In addition, the franchisor is allowed to allocate an exclusive territory to a maximum of five franchisees instead of just one franchisee (this is only possible if the franchise agreement also allows this).

In short, it is important to test the agreements between franchisor and franchisee against the renewed block exemption regulation for vertical agreements. The renewed block exemption regulation may also offer opportunities for your franchise formula. In any case, you must comply with this new legislation no later than 1 year after its entry into force. However, agreements concluded after 1 June 2022 must immediately comply with the renewed block exemption regulation for vertical agreements and cannot make use of this transitional law.

mr. M. Munnik
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email to munnik@ludwigvandam.nl

Other messages

Damage estimate after wrongful termination of the franchise agreement by the franchisor

In a judgment of the Supreme Court of 15 September 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2372 (Franchisee/Coop), it was discussed that supermarket organization Coop had not complied with agreements, as a result of which the franchisee

Franchisor is obliged to extend the franchise agreement

On 6 September 2017, the Rotterdam District Court ruled, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:6975 (Misty / Bram Ladage), that the refusal to extend a franchise agreement by a franchisor

The (in)validity of a post-contractual non-competition clause in a franchise agreement: analogy with employment law?

On 5 September 2017, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:4565, rendered a judgment on, among other things, the question of whether Bruna, as a franchisor, could invoke the prohibition for a

Column Franchise+ – mr. J Sterk: “Court orders fast food chain to extend franchise agreement

The case is set to begin this year. For years, the franchisee has been refusing to sign the new franchise agreement that was offered with renewal, as it would lead to a deterioration of his legal position

By Jeroen Sterk|01-09-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Not a valid non-compete clause for franchisee

On 18 November 2016, the interim relief judge of the Central Netherlands District Court, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:7754, rendered a judgment in the issue concerning whether the franchisee was held

Franchise & Law No. 5 – Acquisition Fraud and Franchising Act

The Acquisition Fraud Act came into effect on 1 July 2016. This includes amendments to Section 6:194 of the Dutch Civil Code.

By Ludwig en van Dam|10-08-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |
Go to Top